Reading: 2.2—Public Vision Casting

2.2 Public Vision Casting: Though I have expended hundreds of words highlighting the horrors of public vision casting, there is an important role for generally casting vision in the public arena. Vision casting in the public setting to larger groups complements and supports private vision casting and contributes to creating ownership.

High Visibility: Chip Heath and Dan Heath are brothers and co-authors of Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die, an insightful book on effective communication. In this book, the Heaths unveil their model of communicating ideas with an acronym of principles – S.U.C.C.E.S. (OK, fine – I, too, struggle with the fact that they left out an S, but it’s a great book nevertheless). The second C is for Credibility; is your idea believable; is it credible (Made to Stick: Heath & Heath, p. 17; pp. 131-164)?

 Applied to the merits of a revitalization process, credibility must first overcome incredibility. Observation tells me that it’s easier for church folks, pastors and leaders included, to believe that revitalization will NOT work than it is for them to believe that revitalization will work. Why is that? Numerous recurring reasons are presented in discussions with decision-makers over whether or not to engage in revitalization. I’ll cite a few:

1. Revitalization Program Malaise – Pastors, leaders, and congregants cite engagement in past revitalization programs that failed, leaving a residue of cynicism and mistrust regarding apparent new revitalization programs. In their minds, it didn’t work before so why should they trust and believe that it will work now. Hold that thought; we’ll come back to this shortly.

2. Resource Shortages – There is often a sense in a given church that the resources necessary to navigate revitalization successfully are not available and won’t become available. The perspective is that there is a shortage of leaders, a shortage of money, a shortage of time, a shortage of energy, a shortage of vision, etc., etc. It seems unreasonable to take on a new, large- scale initiative with resources already stretched to the limit.

3. Objective Faith vs. Subjective Faith – Jesus gives evidence regarding the power of faith to do such things as move mountains (Matthew 17:20) or give sight to the blind (Matthew 9:29-30). He also warns that power is hindered by a lack of faith, as when his disciples were in fear of a storm at sea (Matthew 8:26). It’s not simply that people in declining churches have no faith; it’s that their faith is an objective faith and not a subjective faith. They fully have faith in the power of God the Father, Son, and Spirit to bless and even create miraculous manifestations in churches, but they think of these acts of God as occurring in other churches (objective faith) and struggle to see God’s moving in such a way in their church (subjective faith).

4. Isolation Pastor-Think – A typical scenario in declined church settings is that a pastor has been called to lead a congregation that has long been in decline and whose membership is largely a longstanding membership that has been part of the church for years. The pastor comes in as the “new” pastor and remains the “new” pastor in perpetuity. I’ve known of pastors with over twenty years of tenure with a church who are still referred to by some as the new pastor. When such a pastor connects with me regarding revitalization, some variation of, “I’m all alone here,” surfaces. Among such variations are, “They’re all against me,” and, “I get it but they don’t.” Church leaders and congregants are referred to as “they” and “them” and the pastor doesn’t seem to identify himself or herself with them but stands off as essentially a third party to what’s transpiring.

5. Clandestine Leader Ops – When leaders that are in the driver’s seat of revitalization operate more-or-less in the dark, other staff, leaders, and congregants begin to imagine what’s going on, filling in whatever blanks come to mind. No surprise, their imaginings tend to be negative concoctions of worst-case scenarios, thereby heightening concerns, fears, and suspicions. By the time the vision and strategy are brought out from under wraps, a tsunami of mistrust crashes over early efforts to cast vision and create ownership, and any hope of credibility is destroyed.

Note that in my comments regarding Revitalization Program Malaise, I made reference to apparent new revitalization programs and promised to return to this reference. My approach to revitalization is not a program approach but is a process approach. This is an important distinction. A program approach suggests a one-size-fits-all, fill-in-the-blanks treatment for pastors and leaders to follow in their attempt at revitalization. This is a 20 th century, corporate model that, benefit of the doubt, might have worked in a certain percentage of churches in decades gone by but will not prove effective today. The appearance of effectiveness might present if the church in view was already reasonably stable and was not attempting to climb out of serious decline. Slight bumps in conventional statistics might prompt a reading of success, another version of a false positive.

A process approach recognizes that one size doesn’t fit all and that filling in programming blanks is more problem than solution. Process is about changing the mindset of what biblical ministry is and how ministry thinking should be shaped. For example, pastors and leaders typically shape ministry by asking and answering the question, “How do we minister TO our congregation?” The answer is typically centered on conventional church programming that has an in-reach focus. The GO Center revitalization process, placing the priority on missional ministry, shifts to asking and answering the question, “How do we ministry THROUGH our congregation to reach our community?” The answer to this question is centered on viewing the church as the epicenter of a domestic mission field, thinking like missionaries, and creating Great Commission ministries designed to connect this particular congregation with those outside in this particular community, an out-reach focus. In a sense, this perspective serves as an operating system as a church moves through the process.

Vision casting to create ownership leverages casting vision in public settings to complement and support its efforts in casting vision in private.